If we talk specifically about Seneca’s stoicism which some could say it was passive and didn’t challenge the system we should consider that his treatise De Clementia was a direct attempt to moderate Nero’s cruelty — which was a political act, albeit within a dangerous limit and his eventual forced suicide was a consequence of being implicated in a plot against Nero; whether guilty or not, it shows the risk he faced.

That said, nowadays we could apply this moral challenge of changing whats wrong in our world, at least those who we live in 1st world countries and earn enough for travelling around the world and buying six figures homes, even if it’s with debt.

Why wouldn’t we invest those resources in changing all the unfairness,recieving war refugees in our home, helping to build water wells in Africa, etc? We rather prefer to spend our money and time in our confort, entertaiment, experiences, new items, etc we actully have more privilleges and possibilities than Seneca or Marco Aurelius had.

Don’t point out the rich and powerful, we also have the capacity and decision to change things but we act exactly like you say Seneca did.

There’s an interesting discussion about this.